Hi fell in love with the M8 the moment I saw her for the first time. Mainly because of her design. Well, not mainly, just for that because I never had the chance to try one. I know the first batch of camera was faulty (but it was just like the banding on the D200 and countless defects on hundreds camera put on the market too soon too fast) but it looks like Leica finally got around it and now the M8 should be almost perfect. It's definetely not a sport camera, but for street shooting it may be the best around.
I read a review here:
and was very impressed by image quality and grain/noise at high ISO. If you shoot in the street, and use a lot of B/W, this might be the camera to pick up. The price? Non sense.
Just a thought.
J.
Amazing grace! How sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me!
I once was lost, but now am found;
Was blind, but now I see.
Yeah, some reviewers don't like it, some love it and say it's better than a 5D. I think it's beautiful and for the way I shoot, it's perfect. No bulky bags and heavy lenses, discretion is the order, and it's a Leica! I'll be drooling for quite some time. I need to dump my Canon gear.
Yeah, some reviewers don't like it, some love it and say it's better than a 5D. I think it's beautiful and for the way I shoot, it's perfect. No bulky bags and heavy lenses, discretion is the order, and it's a Leica! I'll be drooling for quite some time. I need to dump my Canon gear.
In my opinion there's a huge difference if you're an amatour or a pro, regarding specifically the M8. It's silly expansive for what you get. Period. If you're not a pro, with the same money you can buy an M6 with a 35, tons of film and shoot like a mad man for quite a while. If you're a pro is a completely different matter. From the shots I saw on the web, the camera has a high potential, but that price tag...
Amazing grace! How sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me!
I once was lost, but now am found;
Was blind, but now I see.
It also depends on your definition of pro. Pro means you get paid. You can have the best camera and lenses in the world and shoot photos of your kids on swings. If you sell one of those to your friends, you're a pro. Or you can have a Leica M and shoot the war in The Sudan. If you don't sell any of those shots, are they pro shots? It all depends on what you do and how you do it. Pro is an overly used, arbitrary term. A throw-away camera from the supermarket can be a pro camera.
It also depends on your definition of pro. Pro means you get paid. You can have the best camera and lenses in the world and shoot photos of your kids on swings. If you sell one of those to your friends, you're a pro. Or you can have a Leica M and shoot the war in The Sudan. If you don't sell any of those shots, are they pro shots? It all depends on what you do and how you do it. Pro is an overly used, arbitrary term. A throw-away camera from the supermarket can be a pro camera.
Hi Damonff, pro is a person who's making a living out of something. That's it. In my humble opinion. Don't matter if you're shooting sports, wedding or street. Most of the time pro means thousands of photos per week. If you're an amatour and would like to have a Leica in your hand, you can get some very well manteined M3 for less than 1000$ (with 50/2 on it). You still have 3000$ left for film. Some 800 rolls of Tri-X. That's about 28.000 shots. Let's say 2 to 5 years worth of shooting. A pro might get that figure in less than one year. That's what I was tryin' to say. Hope it makes sense.
Amazing grace! How sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me!
I once was lost, but now am found;
Was blind, but now I see.
Yeah, it makes sense. Records sound better than iPods, but I'd still prefer an iPod. Film is better than digital, but it's cumbersome and inconvenient. With an M8, a sumicron 35mm f/2, and a Macbook Pro, I'm good to go. It's just preference. In the post-film world I think that we shouldn't be lugging around equipment that acts space-age yet looks 1970s. Even though the Leica looks like an old Leica, the compactness makes it more modern. Opinions will, of course, differ. Some people like big bodies with big white lenses that shoot motorcycles at 15 frames per second. That is their photographic paradise. Some don't. Some people will shoot film forever (or as long as they make it). Some people paint. Some just remember. Now, where's that genie?
I have been hoping that Nikon or Canon or Sony or somebody would see the market for a real high quality rangefinder camera built around an APS sensor.
Really, I think Canon could build a fantastic range finder around the 1.3 sensor in the 1DMklll, which would not impact their sales of the 1DMIII much at all as I agree that SLRs and range finders are usually sold for different shooting styles.
I think that Canon could be designed to use the older Leica lenses. Didn't Canon build a rangfinder years ago that used Leica mount lenses? Or was the a Konica that I'm thinking of?
The primary failure I perceive in the Leica M8 design is the lack of adequate control over UV and InfraRed light. This means, that to colorimetrically match this digital camera to the range of any modern film, you "require" cutout filters. This would be true regarless of corrective post-processing.
I am still enamoured with the film based Fed 5 cameras, of which I have 2.
FED 5 and a 55mm f2.8 Industar (61) L/D lens (Zeiss Tessar design, the radioactive one)
FED 5 and a 5cm (yes, 5 centimeter) f2.0 Jupiter 8 (Zeiss Sonnar design)
With a much better film loading design than the Leica M series (very much IMHO) and the ability (but not currently any need from me) to use the Leica M39/LTM lenses, it's a brutally utilitarian camera.
I shot an entire wedding rehearsal dinner with the Fed 5 and Industar 55mm lens and an auto-flash, and I was very pleased with the results (2004). I paid around $70-$80 dollars for that combination of camera and lens (purchased seperately).
Unfortunately, I had 2 medium format failures in that wedding (both were Mamiya C330) and I wound up using my Canon AE1 Program to shoot most of the formals. Yikes! That was my last film wedding.
Anyway, the point is, if you want a true Leica film experience I believe you still have to go with a film camera. The Leica M8 is a rather OK digital camera, but no substitute for the "real" Leica experience. The poor Fed 5 series cameras is a much closer approximation from any perspective.
I do wish there had been a Fed 6, because that was supposed to be a much better shutter mechanism.
The primary failure I perceive in the Leica M8 design is the lack of adequate control over UV and InfraRed light. This means, that to colorimetrically match this digital camera to the range of any modern film, you "require" cutout filters. This would be true regarless of corrective post-processing.
I am still enamoured with the film based Fed 5 cameras, of which I have 2.
FED 5 and a 55mm f2.8 Industar (61) L/D lens (Zeiss Tessar design, the radioactive one)
FED 5 and a 5cm (yes, 5 centimeter) f2.0 Jupiter 8 (Zeiss Sonnar design)
With a much better film loading design than the Leica M series (very much IMHO) and the ability (but not currently any need from me) to use the Leica M39/LTM lenses, it's a brutally utilitarian camera.
I shot an entire wedding rehearsal dinner with the Fed 5 and Industar 55mm lens and an auto-flash, and I was very pleased with the results (2004). I paid around $70-$80 dollars for that combination of camera and lens (purchased seperately).
Unfortunately, I had 2 medium format failures in that wedding (both were Mamiya C330) and I wound up using my Canon AE1 Program to shoot most of the formals. Yikes! That was my last film wedding.
Anyway, the point is, if you want a true Leica film experience I believe you still have to go with a film camera. The Leica M8 is a rather OK digital camera, but no substitute for the "real" Leica experience. The poor Fed 5 series cameras is a much closer approximation from any perspective.
I do wish there had been a Fed 6, because that was supposed to be a much better shutter mechanism.
I was going to point that out. the UV/IR problem is an inherent design flaw that they let through & the fix is to give users a filter to go on the lens. That means you MUST have a filter on EVERY lens for this camera. No way around that as things stand now; if I understand correctly it's in part because there is so little room between the sensor & the lens in order to maintain the classic body form. There were other issues with purple fringing or shadows (don't recall exactly) which was eventually fixed wth firmware updates. In any case, it's a flawed design & shows that it's a first-generation attempt. That said, I have been able to play with one a little & can see the Leica mystique--it's a very substantial-feeling camera & give the impression of fine engineering & craftsmanship. Fix the UV/IR problem & get enough cash in my bank account & I would be tempted.
Oh, one thing I have read is that the UV/IR thing makes for an excellent B&W camera.
I'm partial to b/w so maybe that's the source of my fixation.
Just understand that for proper "people" tonality, you must use at least an IR cutout filter. (Many modern lenses are pretty good at limiting UV.)
Ask Baldy if you don't believe me. IR poisoning is what he suspects to be a major problem with many camera designs, and many modern electronic flash designs as well. (If I understand the thrust of many of his posts.)
Or, just shoot in DNG and adjust in Camera RAW instead of relying on auto white balance.
By then (RAW file) it's too late. You need to clip the IR before it affects the image. Color and BW film have layers and sensitivities which prevent IR from affecting the image (except for IR film, of course). The Leica M8 apparently lacks this filtering. You, the user, have to be aware of the problem and correct it accordingly, or tonalities will be affected, and we, as humans, are most affected by what we presume to be "normal" skin tones.
'""Just before leaving I downloaded the latest M8 firmware and found that the biggest improvement was in the auto white balance. It now is highly consistent and spot-on much of the time. My biggest complaint with the M8 remains with the wake-up from sleep mode. It simply is too long for a contemporary camera. Other digital cameras are now almost instantaneous. Why the M8 has to take several seconds is beyond me. More than one shot was missed on this trip as a consequence.
The solution of course is to turn off sleep mode, but then the battery runs down quicker than it should. Come on Leica – fix this soon please!
Otherwise I couldn't be more happy with the performance of the M8 on this shoot. (I didn't use the IR lens filters because since there was no one wearing artificial fabrics in my shots, they were unnecessary). The M8's added IR sensitivity in fact proved advantageous when shooting foliage and then doing B&W conversions.""
Thanks for the information Pathfinder. Just shows again that it's the type of shooting that you do that is the factor. And, it seems that there is a kind of Canon/Nikon allegiance that is unfounded. It's almost like the Republican/Democrat thing. If you want a third party, people look at you strangely. Why switch? My L lens is great! Why shoot with Leica when I can just get a 5D and be like everyone else? One thing I've always liked about The Luminous Landscapse is its insistence on using camera equipment in the field. It was Luminous that convinced me a few years ago to get the 828 even though many websites said that it had a purple fringing problem. The reviewer took it along on a trip to Africa and reported amazing results, even in a storm of naysayers. I still use that camera.
What I am referencing is Baldy's investigation of some human skin reflecting IR to a greater degree than other people.
I think he is still researching the situation, but many consumer cameras lack adequate IR filtering and yield rather odd looking results. (The Nikon D70 was supposed to have this problem as well.)
If the Leica M8 is similarly sensitive to IR, then you might expect similar results to these, and for the following reasons:
Comments
We never know how something we say, do, or think today, will effect the lives of millions tomorrow....BJ Palmer
I read a review here:
Luminous Landscape
and was very impressed by image quality and grain/noise at high ISO. If you shoot in the street, and use a lot of B/W, this might be the camera to pick up. The price? Non sense.
Just a thought.
J.
That saved a wretch like me!
I once was lost, but now am found;
Was blind, but now I see.
http://judah.smugmug.com/
Charlie
In my opinion there's a huge difference if you're an amatour or a pro, regarding specifically the M8. It's silly expansive for what you get. Period. If you're not a pro, with the same money you can buy an M6 with a 35, tons of film and shoot like a mad man for quite a while. If you're a pro is a completely different matter. From the shots I saw on the web, the camera has a high potential, but that price tag...
That saved a wretch like me!
I once was lost, but now am found;
Was blind, but now I see.
http://judah.smugmug.com/
Hi Damonff, pro is a person who's making a living out of something. That's it. In my humble opinion. Don't matter if you're shooting sports, wedding or street. Most of the time pro means thousands of photos per week. If you're an amatour and would like to have a Leica in your hand, you can get some very well manteined M3 for less than 1000$ (with 50/2 on it). You still have 3000$ left for film. Some 800 rolls of Tri-X. That's about 28.000 shots. Let's say 2 to 5 years worth of shooting. A pro might get that figure in less than one year. That's what I was tryin' to say. Hope it makes sense.
That saved a wretch like me!
I once was lost, but now am found;
Was blind, but now I see.
http://judah.smugmug.com/
Really, I think Canon could build a fantastic range finder around the 1.3 sensor in the 1DMklll, which would not impact their sales of the 1DMIII much at all as I agree that SLRs and range finders are usually sold for different shooting styles.
I think that Canon could be designed to use the older Leica lenses. Didn't Canon build a rangfinder years ago that used Leica mount lenses? Or was the a Konica that I'm thinking of?
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
I am still enamoured with the film based Fed 5 cameras, of which I have 2.
FED 5 and a 55mm f2.8 Industar (61) L/D lens (Zeiss Tessar design, the radioactive one)
FED 5 and a 5cm (yes, 5 centimeter) f2.0 Jupiter 8 (Zeiss Sonnar design)
With a much better film loading design than the Leica M series (very much IMHO) and the ability (but not currently any need from me) to use the Leica M39/LTM lenses, it's a brutally utilitarian camera.
I shot an entire wedding rehearsal dinner with the Fed 5 and Industar 55mm lens and an auto-flash, and I was very pleased with the results (2004). I paid around $70-$80 dollars for that combination of camera and lens (purchased seperately).
Unfortunately, I had 2 medium format failures in that wedding (both were Mamiya C330) and I wound up using my Canon AE1 Program to shoot most of the formals. Yikes! That was my last film wedding.
Anyway, the point is, if you want a true Leica film experience I believe you still have to go with a film camera. The Leica M8 is a rather OK digital camera, but no substitute for the "real" Leica experience. The poor Fed 5 series cameras is a much closer approximation from any perspective.
I do wish there had been a Fed 6, because that was supposed to be a much better shutter mechanism.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Yep, Canon made a series of rangefinder cameras based on the the M39/26tpi mount.
You can still use M39 lenses on Leica M class cameras via an adapter. (Kudos to Leica for preserving this compatablity.)
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
http://www.cameraquest.com/voigtr2ar3a.htm
I can't afford I Leica, but if I go back into film its either this, or a Rolleicord.
I was going to point that out. the UV/IR problem is an inherent design flaw that they let through & the fix is to give users a filter to go on the lens. That means you MUST have a filter on EVERY lens for this camera. No way around that as things stand now; if I understand correctly it's in part because there is so little room between the sensor & the lens in order to maintain the classic body form. There were other issues with purple fringing or shadows (don't recall exactly) which was eventually fixed wth firmware updates. In any case, it's a flawed design & shows that it's a first-generation attempt. That said, I have been able to play with one a little & can see the Leica mystique--it's a very substantial-feeling camera & give the impression of fine engineering & craftsmanship. Fix the UV/IR problem & get enough cash in my bank account & I would be tempted.
Oh, one thing I have read is that the UV/IR thing makes for an excellent B&W camera.
http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
Just understand that for proper "people" tonality, you must use at least an IR cutout filter. (Many modern lenses are pretty good at limiting UV.)
Ask Baldy if you don't believe me.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
By then (RAW file) it's too late. You need to clip the IR before it affects the image. Color and BW film have layers and sensitivities which prevent IR from affecting the image (except for IR film, of course). The Leica M8 apparently lacks this filtering. You, the user, have to be aware of the problem and correct it accordingly, or tonalities will be affected, and we, as humans, are most affected by what we presume to be "normal" skin tones.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Micheal Riechman said - and I quote -
'""Just before leaving I downloaded the latest M8 firmware and found that the biggest improvement was in the auto white balance. It now is highly consistent and spot-on much of the time. My biggest complaint with the M8 remains with the wake-up from sleep mode. It simply is too long for a contemporary camera. Other digital cameras are now almost instantaneous. Why the M8 has to take several seconds is beyond me. More than one shot was missed on this trip as a consequence.
The solution of course is to turn off sleep mode, but then the battery runs down quicker than it should. Come on Leica – fix this soon please!
Otherwise I couldn't be more happy with the performance of the M8 on this shoot. (I didn't use the IR lens filters because since there was no one wearing artificial fabrics in my shots, they were unnecessary). The M8's added IR sensitivity in fact proved advantageous when shooting foliage and then doing B&W conversions.""
I find his statements quite informative.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
I think he is still researching the situation, but many consumer cameras lack adequate IR filtering and yield rather odd looking results. (The Nikon D70 was supposed to have this problem as well.)
If the Leica M8 is similarly sensitive to IR, then you might expect similar results to these, and for the following reasons:
http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=513516&postcount=11
http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=513532&postcount=13
__________________
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums